Very interesting. I would be eager to hear about anyone who has a carbon problem looking into this and seeing if it works.

 

Interesting find!

 

I was watching the TV show and i was really amazed, it wasn't an infomercial either. It claims to clean out the O2 sensor, the cats and the motor. PLEASE let me know if anyone knows where I can go get this done. My car has 70k on it and im sure it would love a nice flush.

This guy could stay in business just from M5 owners!!

 

http://www.terraclean.net/faqs.htm <----LINK

I watched a big special on speed channel this looked pretty legit. Does anyone know about this and where we can go to get it done? I didnt see anything on the web site on how to get the procedure.

The "Science of TerraClean" section of their website doesn't make any sense to me.

1. Smaller molecules are simply fuels of lower octane. "Extremely small" molecules would have very low octane ratings. Lower octane has no cleansing effect.

2. What is "extremely small" anyway? Pentane (C5H12) is the smallest hydrocarbon atom that is liquid at room temperature. When compared to Octane (C8H18), the standard of the 100 octane rating, Pentane is more than 1/2 the molecular weight of Pentane... not what I would call "extremely small".

3. "Electrically charged molecules" are ions or anions. I don't think hydrocarbon ions (or anions) are stable enough to produce and deliver in any meaningful quantity. Even if delivered, the carbon deposits would have to be anions (or ions) to have any attraction. They're not. Hydrocarbon ion chemistry is pretty esoteric stuff, living in some advanced hydrocarbon fuel cells, ring accelerators and Jupiter's atmosphere. It doesn't live in our engines.

4. I've never heard of "agglomeration" used in this situation. It just makes me more suspicious... sounds like a snow job.

The rest of the "science" section follows from these very suspect postulates. While these effects of carbon may be true, they do nothing further to explain how the carbon is removed.

 

The "Science of TerraClean" section of their website doesn't make any sense to me.

1. Smaller molecules are simply fuels of lower octane. "Extremely small" molecules would have very low octane ratings. Lower octane has no cleansing effect.

2. What is "extremely small" anyway? Pentane (C5H12) is the smallest hydrocarbon atom that is liquid at room temperature. When compared to Octane (C8H18), the standard of the 100 octane rating, Pentane is more than 1/2 the molecular weight of Pentane... not what I would call "extremely small".

3. "Electrically charged molecules" are ions or anions. I don't think hydrocarbon ions (or anions) are stable enough to produce and deliver in any meaningful quantity. Even if delivered, the carbon deposits would have to be anions (or ions) to have any attraction. They're not. Hydrocarbon ion chemistry is pretty esoteric stuff, living in some advanced hydrocarbon fuel cells, ring accelerators and Jupiter's atmosphere. I don't think it lives in our engines.

4. I've never heard of "agglomeration" used in this situation. It just makes me more suspicious... sounds like a snow job.

The rest of the "science" section follows from these very suspect postulates. While these effects of carbon may be true, they do nothing further to explain how the carbon is removed.

Would I dyno prove you have a cleaner motor?? maybee someone getting error codes has nothing to loose.
Im no scientist thats for sure, to be honest I heard molecules and atoms and skipped on down the page.
I wanna see if it works.

 

maybee someone getting error codes has nothing to loose.

The only thing to lose is the money given to scammers. Given what we've spent on our M5's and what carbon cleaning costs I guess that's no big deal to test it out.

BTW, my service guy stuck an endoscope down a plug hole to look around. No SES light yet but I've got LOTS of carbon on the pistons and valves. Crap. I would think that would be a good diagnostic tool. First have a look around, then try this cleaner, and have another look. Easier than a dyno?

 

PLEASE let me know if anyone knows where I can go get this done. My car has 70k on it and im sure it would love a nice flush.

You could call. http://www.terraclean.net/contactus.htm

I would guess they send it to you. If you can have a look in with the endoscope first, maybe even get a picture or 2, then do this and look again?

gavin

 

I couldn't find any info on how much it costs and how you can get it. Do you just order it from the company and dump it in the gas tank?

 

$139.95

I think Terraclean sells the mahine and process to dealers who then resell the service for msrp $139.95.

 

Terra Clean Science?

$139.95

I think Terraclean sells the mahine and process to dealers who then resell the service for msrp $139.95.

Why don't you guys just buy a can of BG 44K and use what we know works?!! The "science" behind 44K is proven and we know it works. A can costs about $22 or you can go for the entire fuel system service (air and fuel) and spend somewhere between $99 and $159. The results are phenomenal for the entire fuel system service, but the 44K in the tank works wonders as well.

 

so how would this stuff get into the secondary smog ports, where the carbon blockage is?

 

1. Smaller molecules are simply fuels of lower octane. "Extremely small" molecules would have very low octane ratings. Lower octane has no cleansing effect.

2. What is "extremely small" anyway? .

Very small rocks??? :jump:

But seriously. Here is an issue I come across all the time, in the work that I do.

- I need to get my work out into the public eye.

- There are more things I can do, I can extrapolate..from the current work I am trying to publicly exploit. One aspect of the work I'm publicly selling--- is merely a facet of the real implications of waht the particular science 'opening' is 'worth' Ie, multiple pathways to a plethora of applications.

- I need to tell people what is going on, but I have No desire whatsoever to in any way, shape or form, educate any possible competition on how they may use these proper explainations, to rip me off on my future prospects, or to simply 'use' my understandings..to furthur themselves.

- The policy is to: Never explain anything correctly. Never give the competition any ideas. Ever. No matter what anyone thinks or says. End of story. Mis-direction is my byword.

I'm not saying the case is that here. I've no idea what you guys are even talking about, ok? I'm just commenting on the perception of 'bad science'.

But that's the way I'd do it. If the process works and other 'tech heads' are confused..so much the better. After all, the tech heads don't count. Customers do.

Problem being, it makes it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Then there is the other issues.... all kinds of industrial espionage, etc. People with other interests discrediting the competition, as a matter of policy. Lots of different things.

The more ignorant, insensed and confused the tech heads are, the happier I am.

 

Very small rocks??? :jump:


The more ignorant, insensed and confused the tech heads are, the happier I am.

That pic is from one of my FAVORITE movies!

The proof's in the pudding, so it'll be interesting to see how well it works.

BTW, I'm not ignorant, insensed OR confused. The product may well work, but not the way they claim. I am sure of that. Why a company would purposely choose to voluntarily provide pseudo-science babble and fail the "duck test" is beyond me. It's far more credible to claim a "trade secret" than make false claims.

 

I suspect the root cause of carbon buildup is that M5's run a very rich air/fuel

ratio from the factory? Just look at the black buildup at the tailpipes.

 

$139.95

I think Terraclean sells the mahine and process to dealers who then resell the service for msrp $139.95.

I guess you have to call them to find out where they do it in your particular area.

 

- There are more things I can do, I can extrapolate..from the current work I am trying to publicly exploit. One aspect of the work I'm publicly selling--- is merely a facet of the real implications of waht the particular science 'opening' is 'worth' Ie, multiple pathways to a plethora of applications.

Well, not sure what I just read, but the pix brought a smille to my face! :haha:

I'm rootin for anything that can help the carbon in the secondary air system, but as Mike pointed out, might be hard to get this product, or any other coming in through the fuel system, where we need it.

Cheers,
Dave

 

..... might be hard to get this product, or any other coming in through the fuel system, where we need it.

Science, Schmience...

Once I hear "carbon build up" and "helps" thats all I need to know.

Never mind that we are talking about totally different processes and different locations within the engine.. why confuse ourselves with facts, details, real understanding... heck, let's cross post this scam on every single post here that has the word "carbon" in it...

[shakes head, stumbles out to the shop..]

:sad2:

A

 

all we need to do is set up a little reservoir, maybe use the intensive wash bottle, run a hose from that to the smog pump. Fill the reservoir with this stuff, every morning, the smog pump sprays carbon-b-gone into the exhaust ports. That oughta do it...:deal: :deal:

 

deal. Where do I sign.

 

I suspect the root cause of carbon buildup is that M5's run a very rich air/fuel

ratio from the factory? Just look at the black buildup at the tailpipes.

NO BLACK BUILDUP in my tailpipes (38,000 miles). Guess I drive so fast that the soot doesn't have time to settle there ... :M5launch:

 

So then, what's the verdict? Or do we have to wait until someone actually tries this out? Also, would using higher octane gas (ie. mix of 101 and 91) help in decreasing buildup?

 

So then, what's the verdict? Or do we have to wait until someone actually tries this out? Also, would using higher octane gas (ie. mix of 101 and 91) help in decreasing buildup?

I sent an email but haven't heard back yet.

I always run 93 octane from Sunoco.

 

Also, would using higher octane gas (ie. mix of 101 and 91) help in decreasing buildup?

I don't know. But I do know that higher octane gasoline burns more slowly than low octane, so if carbon formation is in part due to incomplete combustion, I would think it would hurt more than help with carbon buildup. But I'm sure the carbon issue is much more complex than that.

 

I don't know. But I do know that higher octane gasoline burns more slowly than low octane, so if carbon formation is in part due to incomplete combustion, I would think it would hurt more than help with carbon buildup. But I'm sure the carbon issue is much more complex than that.

It also has a higher ignition energy, which is what helps control pre-ignition in high compression engines. Again, not sure how it could matter regarding carbon build up.

 

Hi gang,

A few notes on carbon, since there seems to be some confusion around this issue. There's a tendency to lump carbon build up in the secondary air system with more traditional combustion chamber CBU (pistons, valves). They are somewhat different animals. Fortunately, CBU in both areas of the engine appears to have fairly minimal to no affect on the S62's performance.

I haven't seen too many posts on combustion chamber CBU adversely affecting engine performance. This is the type of CBU that might be affected by gasoline additives. The only thing I've noted are posts on spark plug replacement that generally report some incremental peppiness after replacing sooty plugs with fresh ones, and anecdotes of cars running better after some hard runs. If I had to guess, it probably doesn't hurt to occasionally raise the cylinder head temperature to burn off some soft combustion chamber deposits. But I don't see this significantly impacting a more chronic problem of carbon deposition in the secondary air system passages.

The good news is that carbon clogging of the secondary ports/tubes does not adversely impact engine performance. Greg's car is a good example--high mileage, secondary carbon clogging, and the car runs great. Data from the carbon survey indicate that cars running top tier gas and frequent hard and/or track use can still experience secondary carbon clogging. Because solvents coming in through the fuel system will be subjected to combustion before they reach the secondary passages, it is unlikely they would have much affect on secondary deposits. Even if they were to somehow find their way into the secondary passages relatively intact, it appears they would have minimal impact on the hard carbon deposits in these passages. One board member explored the solubility of scrapings of these hard carbon deposits in a variety of strong organic solvents and was not encouraged by his observations. He even went so far as to drill access holes into his secondary air tubes through solvents could be pumped into the system. But this did not work to clear his head ports: his SES light came back on. So I'm not sure how hopeful I'd be that anything we put in our gas tanks is gonna help with secondary air system clogging.

What I continue to be intrigued by are rapid-clogging vehicles. One member reported clogged ports at only 9,000 miles. Another at 17,000 miles. Why do these cars clog so quickly, while others can go 100,000 miles? Since exhaust gases should not be cycling through the secondary air system in the first place, the evidence might point to a hardware/design issue, with the shut-off valve as a key suspect. I'd love to get a subject matter expert's opinion on this, and perhaps we may yet have some clarification from BMWNA as a result of the group letter. But other than running the best gas available, I wouldn't worry about additional measures for the gas tank which are unlikely to be effective at addressing carbon deposits in the secondary air system.

I hope this helps clarify things a bit.

Cheers,
Dave

 

Hi gang,

A few notes on carbon, since there seems to be some confusion around this issue. There's a tendency to lump carbon build up in the secondary air system with more traditional combustion chamber CBU (pistons, valves). They are somewhat different animals. Fortunately, CBU in both areas of the engine appears to have fairly minimal to no affect on the S62's performance.

Different animals, yes, but is the root problem the same? That is,the generation of carbon in the first place?

My mechanic says the piston/valve deposits are creating the slight hesitance my car has below 2500 rpm. Does this sound reasonable? No SES light (yet).